LOW CARIOGENICITY CHOCOLATE

Abstract: Chocolate of low cariogenicity, which may be white, milk or plain chocolate contains not more than 1 % fermentable sugars. When a white or milk chocolate is required, some fermentable milk sugars may be tolerated, in addition, to up to 1 % of fermentable non-milk sugars, particularly if the chocolate meets the requirements of a "toothfriendly test" described herein.

Description: LOW CARIOGENICITY CHOCOLATE This invention relates to chocolate compositions of low cariogenicity. It is now internationally accepted that consumption, and particularly frequency of consumption, of sugars is a major factor in development of dental caries. This has led to proposals to reduce intake of sugars by half with drastic cuts in sugar taken in the form of confectionery. It is also accepted that children in particular are unlikely to reduce voluntarily their consumption of confectionery. Thus, confectionery manufacturers have a responsibility to offer products that are acceptable as confectionery but do not promote formation of dental caries. There is a basic problem in measuring cariogenicity of single foods because the disease takes months to be detectable. Cariogenicity testing thus tends to be indirect. One well established method referred to hereinafter and in the claims as the "toothfriendly test" uses standardised in vivo pH telemetry testing of interdental plaque layers which are at least 3 days but not more than 7 days old. Products are considered "toothfriendly" if interdental plaque pH is not depressed below 5.7 due to bacterial fermentation, either during food/confectionery consumption or during a period of 30 minutes after foo /confectionery consumption. Details of the "toothfriendly test" are given in "Sugarless. The Way Forward." edited by A J Rugg-Gunn, pp. 197-210, Elsevier Science, 1991. Passing this type of test would seem to provide a useful way of defining low or hypo-cariogenic foods both for food manufacturers and for the general population. However every confectionery formulation would need to be separately tested and variability in ingredients could even then cause problems. Thus ideally a criterion is required that is capable of simple in vitro measurement, but which correlates with the in vivo telemetric test. Perhaps the most useful criterion would be a maximum sugars content in confectionery, below which products would pass a low cariogenicity test. Two criteria are proposed here in relation to low cariogenic chocolate. The first criterion is that low cariogenic chocolate should contain no more than 1% by weight of fermentable sugars. The second criterion is that low cariogenic chocolate should contain not more than 1% by weight of non-milk fermentable sugars, and preferably pass the afore-specified "toothfriendly" > test. The essential difference between these criteria is that the second does not include lactose in the restricted maximum of 1%. The rationale and implications of this are considered later. The above criteria impose considerable formulation changes on regular chocolate which typically contains 40-50% sucrose which needs to be replaced. However recently a number of sugar replacers; polyols, bulking agents and intense sweeteners have been permitted for use in foods and these, when pure, do not promote formation of dental caries. Polyols e.g. isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, xylitol, erythritol are hydrogenated sugars. Bulking agents e.g. polydextrose, oligofructose and inulin are composed of chains of simple sugars, but the links cannot be broken by the body's natural enzymes so they are not metabolised like normal carbohydrates. Intense sweeteners e.g. aspartame and acesulphame K are about 200 times sweeter than sucrose and are thus used in small amounts. They are not carbohydrates and their presence can usually be ignored in relation to cariogenicity. What can usually be ignored in relation to sugar replacers is that some contain high levels of simple sugars as impurities. Others however are relatively free from sugars and by selection, it is possible to use them to replace sucrose without exceeding 1% sugars in the final product. The choice of sugar replacers in terms of a low cariogenic chocolate is however much more restricted than when formulating reduced calorie chocolate. Use of sugar replacers in reduced calorie chocolate and confectionery has been disclosed in a number of patents. Two particularly relevant to chocolate are EP-A-512910 to L Mentink and M Serpelloni and EP-A-317917 to T Kerne and H Bollinger. The latter makes particular reference to tooth-sparing qualities of sugarfree chocolate made by the crumb process. Unfortunately they both seem to be mainly concerned with calorie reduction and fail to address the question of low cariogenicity in more than a superficial manner. For example they each suggest polydextrose be used as an ingredient, yet this may contain up to 4% glucose and up to 8% simple sugars. As manufacturers of polydextrose suggest it can be used up to 25% by weight of chocolate, a significant amount of sugars could be introduced in the form of just one ingredient. Polydextrose also contains bound citric acid which gives an acid pH. Also, neither patent notes that fermentable sugars may arise in chocolate, from ingredients like cocoa mass and hazelnut paste. Further because part or all of their emphasis is on low calorie chocolate there is a concentration on reducing fat in the formulations. In low cariogenic chocolate, fat can be protective in restricting access of sugar to the teeth. It is not only sucrose or fermentable sugars arising from sugar replacers which are of importance in cariogenicity of chocolate. Milk and white chocolate contain lactose from milk solids which must legally be present. For example the legal minimum for milk solids is 14%, with most formulations well in excess of this. 14% whole milk solids may provide about 6.1g lactose per lOOg chocolate. There is some uncertainty concerning the extent of cariogenicity of lactose. It can be utilised by bacteria for acid production, although it is metabolised more slowly than other simple sugars. Liquid milk however is not always considered to be a cariogenic food, owing to milk protein having a high buffering capacity, calcium in milk helping to protect teeth from attach and liquid milk being in contact with teeth only a limited time. This last feature does not apply to milk powder in chocolate and local concentations of lactose in the mouth may be high. Nevertheless it seems likely that low cariogenic chocolate should be able to tolerate more lactose present in milk solids than sugars like sucrose or glucose. Formulation of a low cariogenic chocolate thus needs to restrict the presence of non-milk sugars and establish a criterion for limiting lactose content. The criterion needs to be effective and practicable in terms of chocolate formulation. Reduction of non-milk sugars and lactose may lead to contents of sugar replacers in excess of 55%, more than in low calorie chocolate where sucrose content is limited to 55%. Such large additions of sugar replacers makes worse the know problems of sugar replacers, among others, increased viscosity during production and deterioration of texture, outhfeel and flavour. It is an object of this invention to provide a chocolate low in cariogenicity. According to one aspect of the invention there is provided white, milk or plain chocolate in which sucrose and other fermentable sugars are substituted by sugar replacers such that not more than 1% fermentable sugars of any type remains. According to a second aspect of this invention a chocolate low in cariogenicity comprises white or milk chocolate in which fermentable non-milk sugars such as sucrose are substituted by sugar replacer such that not more than 1% fermentable non-milk sugar remains. With the latter such products lactose need not be so completely replaced by sugar replacers as in the first aspect of the invention, although preferably the chocolate passes the low cariogenicity or "toothfriendly" test described hereinbefore. Sugar replacers suitable for use in compositions embodying this invention are for the most part polyols and/or bulking agents with or without intense sweeteners. Other ingredients permitted in chocolate, which do not cause the 1% sugar criteria in the first or second aspects to be breached are equally suitable for sugar replacement. Of the disaccharide polyols, lactitol, isomalt and maltitol are suitable in chocolate and have the lowest specified content of sugars. Isomalt is of proven value in chocolate and at 55% remains an optional ingredient. Xylitol, erythritol, sorbitol and mannitol are also polyols of potential use as sucrose replacers,. Of bulking agents, neither polydextrose or oligofructose is currently available with low levels of sugars. They could be used as minor ingredients, but until their specified sugar content is reduced to near that of polyols they are likely to have limited value and cannot be considered as part of the preferred embodiments. Of intense sweeteners, the preferred components are those closest to sucrose in type of sweetness. Of those currently available aspartame and acesulphame K are both highly suitable. As each is about 200 times sweeter than sucrose, only about 0.2% is required and any minor content of sugars in intense sweeteners can thus be ignored. Other intense sweeteners such as sucralose, cyclamate, alltame and saccharin either alone or combination with others could be used. It should be noted that intense sweeteners are not always required in low cariogenic chocolate because some polyols have a sweetness equal to that of sucrose. So far we have considered replacement for sucrose. Replacements are also required for lactose. In principle the same compounds should be satisfactory. However the combined amount of sucrose plus lactose in chocolate may exceed 55% and such levels of polyols and/or bulk sweeteners are not normally found in chocolate. Technical problems exist even if it could be made at all. Surprisingly it has proved possible to make chocolate of satisfactory texture, mouthfeel and flavour even with about 65% polyol. Partial or complete removal of lactose leaves the question of in what form milk solids are to be added to chocolate and in what quantities. Lactose-free chocolate offers little option other than isolated milk protein plus butterfat. Preferably the milk protein isolates will be composed of casein, whey or casein/whey mixtures and may be as sodium, potassium or calcium complexes. If the product is not to be sold as milk chocolate, then other protein sources may be considered, for example soy protein. The amount of milk protein and butterfat can be considered from two aspects; technical requirement and legal requirement. The legal situation can be summarised by the need for 14% milk solids of which 3.5% at least must be butterfat. Addition of milk protein and butterfat to give a total of 14% would cause large technical difficulties. Excessive protein makes the cocoa mass unworkable while excessive butterfat produces a very soft unmarketable chocolate. It can be argued that the spirit of the legislation requires that milk solids in a lactose free chocolate should be 14% minus the lactose content of 14% milk solids. This reduces the milk solids content to about 7.9%. Such a content of milk protein plus butterfat could be accommodated technically. For lactose reduced chocolate there is a wider range of ingredients available, with manufacturers making available ingredients with varying contents of milk protein, lactose and fat. The choice made depends on the lactose level sought and the cost constraints to be met. There are food ingredients other than polyols and bulk sweeteners which can be used in low cariogenic chocolate. Among these are sources of dietary fibre such as cereal, cellulose, pectin and gum for example. Of greater importance in terms of acceptability of the final product are nuts and fruit. The amount added needs to be restricted in order not to breach the maximum 1% non-milk sugars content. The invention includes formulations which meet the current regulations for chocolate and those which do not. The latter ones offer scope for use of ingredients not currently permitted in chocolate. For example cocoa mass could be partially or completely replaced by cocoa flavouring, and cocoa butter could be replaced by other fats. It should be noted that chocolate of low cariogenicity embodying this invention may also be reduced calorie chocolate due to the presence of polyols and/or bulk sweetener. In addition it may also be suitable for people who are lactose intolerant. To further illustrate the invention detailed, exemplifying formulations are set out in Table 1. Methods for manufacture of the respective chocolate formulations embodying this invention are presented in the examples which follow. Manufacture may be performed in other ways, for example by use of an intermediate chocolate crumb. The method described is a variation of procedures familiar to those practised in chocolate manufacture. In order to test the principle of chocolate formulations passing a low cariogenicity test, chocolate made to Formulation 1 and 2 were submitted to the "toothfriendly" test. Both passed with white chocolate being less acidogenic than milk chocolate, suggesting it may have more scope for presence of lactose. The formulations shown merely represent examples of the type of formulations discussed above which have been successfully manufactured. They in no way limit the scope of the invention. Also, it is not claimed for example that Formulation 4 would necessarily produce chocolate that would pass the "toothfriendly" test. Chocolate embodying this invention can be substituted for traditional chocolate in any of the forms in which chocolate confectionary is made. For such purposes it can be used among others in the forms of chocolate bar, couverture or filling. It will be particularly appropriate in chocolate confectionery where the non-chocolate ingredients are low in cariogenicity. An example would be as a chocolate centre or coating in combination with a sugar coating or centre in which sugar has been replaced by polyol or other low cariogenic ingredient. Such examples and their method of manufacture will be clear to one skilled in the art. [Table 1 * Protein cone.1 contains 50$ protein, 37$ lactose, 1$ fat Protein cone.2 contains 75$ protein, 12$ lactose, 1$ fat Example 1 100 kg butterfat, 100 kg sodium caseinate, 600 kg cocoa butter and 1600 kg lactitol were blended in a mixer to form a homogeneous mass. This mass was passed through a five roll refiner to reduce the particle size to 20-25 microns and then transferred to a conche. 14 kg lecithin, 50 kg cocoa butter, 5 kg vanillin and 4 kg aspartame were added followed by conching for 6 hours at 40°C. The mass was then tempered, moulded into bars and demoulded. Example 2 100 kg butterfat, 100 kg sodium caseinate, 440 kg cocoa mass, 320 kg cocoa butter and 1500 kg lactitol were blended in a mixer to form a homogenous mass. This mass was passed through a five roll refiner to reduce the particle size to 20-25 microns and then transferred to a conche. 14 kg lecithin, 130 kg cocoa butter, 0.16 kg vanillin and 4.4 kg aspartame were added followed by conching for 12 hours at 40 °C. The mass was then tempered, moulded into bars, cooled and demoulded. Example 3 100 kg butterfat, 100 kg Miprotein 50, 600 kg cocoa butter and 1600 kg lactitol were blended in a mixer to form a homogeneous mass. This mass was passed through a five roll refiner to reduce the particle size to 20-25 microns and then transferred to a conche. 14 kg lecithin, 50 kg cocoa butter, 5 kg vanillin and 4 kg aspartame were added followed by conching for 12 hours at 60 °C. The mass was then cooled, tempered, moulded into bars, cooled and demoulded. Example 4 100 kg butterfat, 240 kg Miprotein 75, 440 kg cocoamass, 320 kg cocoa butter and 1580 kg lactitol were blended in a mixer to form a homogeneous mass. The mass was passed through a five roll refiner to reduce the particle size to 20-25 micron and then transferred to a conche. 14 kg lecithin, 196 kg cocoa butter, 0.16 kg vanillin and 4.4 kg aspartame were added followed by conching for 12 hours at 60 °C. The mass was then cooled, tempered, moulded into bars, cooled and demoulded. Example 5 100 kg butterfat, 240 kg Miprotein 75, 440 kg cocoa mass, 320 kg cocoa butter and 1580 kg lactitol were blended in a mixer to form a homogeneous mass. This mass was passed through a five roll refiner to reduce the particle size to 20-25 micron and then transferred to a conche. 14 kg lecithin, 196 kg cocoa butter, 0.16 kg vanillin and 4.4 kg aspartame were added followed by conching for 12 hours at 60 °C. The mass was then cooled, tempered, moulded into bars, cooled and demoulded.

Claims: CLAIMS ; 1. Low cariogenic white, milk or plain chocolate composition wherein not more than 1% fermentable sugars is present. 2. Low cariogenic white or milk chocolate composition wherein not more than 1% fermentable non- milk sugars is present. 3. Chocolate composition according to claim 1 or 2, which passes the "toothfriendly test" described herein". 4. Chocolate composition according to claim 1, 2 or 3, in which sucrose is substantially absent and which contains polyol(s) and/or bulking agent(s) with or without intense sweetener(s). 5. Chocolate according to claim any preceding claim, in which lactose is substantially absent and which contains polyol(s) and/or bulking agent(s) with or without intense sweetener(s). 6. Chocolate composition according to claim 4 and 5, which contains polyol(s) and/or bulking agent(s) with or without intense sweetener(s) in a quantity in excess of 55% by weight of chocolate composition. 7. Chocolate composition according to claims 5 or 6, in which whole, skimmed or whey milk solids are substantially absent and which contains milk protein isolate or concentrate in which lactose has been either eliminated or substantially reduced. 8. Chocolate composition according to any preceding that contains one or more of dietary fibre sources, cellulose, pectin, gum, nuts and fruit.

Inventors: ZUMBE ALBERT, ZUMBE, ALBERT
Applicants: MELTIS PLC, ZUMBE ALBERT, ZUMBE, ALBERT
Application year: 1994
Main classification: A23G1
IPC codes: A23G1